Subscribe to our free social sector news and jobs services!

Stay informed with Australia's number 1 resource for the social sector.

Breaking national NFP news

Jobs and career opportunities

Conferences and events from across Australia

Plus: Sign up today and receive a FREE copy of our Executive Webinar: Government Relations for Not for Profits - A Tactical Approach.

First Name

Last Name

Email Address*

Post Code*

Subscribe to our email bulletins:Pro Bono News | Social sector news bulletin. Sent every Tuesday and Thursday morning.Pro Bono News | Good Business edition. Sent on the first Wednesday of every month.Pro Bono Careers | Purpose-driven job alerts & career news. Sent every Monday morning.Pro Bono Resources | Sector specific professional tools & webinar updates. Sent once a week.Subscriber Offers | Exclusive sector content from our supporting partners. Sent once a month.

BLOG: The Spillover Effect: Philanthropic Responsibility?

In this latest Blog, Not for Profit Fulbright Scholar, Dr Tessa Boyd Caine writes that discussion in the US moves far beyond any notion that philanthropy is a matter for philanthropists alone - both in amount and what is funded and asks what are the implications for Australia.

In this latest Blog, Not for Profit Fulbright Scholar, Dr Tessa Boyd Caine writes that discussion in the US moves far beyond any notion that philanthropy is a matter for philanthropists alone – both in amount and what is funded and asks what are the implications for Australia.

In my first blog I talked about the origins of the title ‘The Spillover Effect’. It comes from the Productivity Commission’s landmark study into the contribution of the Not for Profit sector in 2010, which talked about the broad contribution charities make to community development and wellbeing as a ‘spillover’ effect of their charitable activities.

The PC made some laudable arguments on this assumption, including that it warranted extending of deductible gift recipient tax status to registered charities. However the idea that a charity’s community benefit is an unintended consequence or spillover of its true purpose doesn’t sit well among charitable sector colleagues who feel such a contribution is central to their work. The altruistic mission and the organisational priority on people not profits are defining, not peripheral values.

I think about this often: in discussions about the professionalising of the sector and how we support the talent of our workforce; when challenged about whether ‘non-profit’ is anything more than a business model; and when reading others’ views on the values connection in our work (see for example Paul T. Hogan’s blog below).

Secondly, and perhaps unsurprisingly given this scale, a significant sector has develop around philanthropic grant-makers including researchers, evaluators and groups that scrutinise the effectiveness of this philanthropic activity.

From this environment, a vibrant discussion has emerged in recent years about the distribution of philanthropic funding, not just its quantum, particularly to those in greatest need. Early interest in the extent to which philanthropic funding reached diverse communities has evolved into looking at that distribution to specific groups: a recently-released Foundation Center report on strengthening the field of black male achievement looks at how philanthropy can better support black men and boys; another project with philanthropic network Funders for LGBTQ looks at who's giving and who's getting LGBTQ grants.

What’s engaging about this discussion is that it moves us far beyond any notion that philanthropy is a matter for philanthropists alone – both in amount and what is funded. It is argued strongly that philanthropists have a responsibility to direct their giving to those most disadvantaged; and that there is a public interest in transparency over that giving. Insisting that philanthropy must be responsive to diverse community need, the National Committee on Responsive Philanthropy has called specifically for “improving government oversight of the philanthropic sector to ensure ethical behavior, transparency and responsiveness to the needs of underserved communities”.

Meanwhile Edward Skloot, Director of the Center for Strategic Philanthropy and Civil Society at Duke University, argues that transparency in philanthropic decision-making is warranted “precisely because of its scale, size and capacity to both help and hurt”.

I think there are a number of spillover effects here. The first is the broadening remit of accountability and transparency being applied, appropriately, not just to charities but to the philanthropic funding that supports their activity. By implication, the right to confidentiality over privately-generated money is challenged by legitimate public interest in how it is spent philanthropically.

There is also a spillover into the broader culture with which we view philanthropy. In the US, one manifestation of this is the expectation that philanthropy be directed towards reducing inequality.

So are there implications here for Australia? For one thing, it re-asserts a public policy argument for transparency over philanthropic funding; underpinned by a legitimate public interest in the value, distribution and outcomes of philanthropic spending, and beyond a reporting accountability to regulators and the tax office. Yet as Liu and Baker’s research in Australia points out, media representations of philanthropists “are mediated by Australian cultural norms and serve to conceal yet ultimately reinforce social and economic inequality”.

The Fulbright Professional Scholarship in non-profit leadership is sponsored by the Origin Foundation and supported by the Australian Scholarships Foundation. Applications for the Fulbright Scholarship opened on May 1 and closes August 1.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?